RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note that this is a draft charter that I don't think even this group ever 
agreed on.  If I am incorrect on this, please correct me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 7:06 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> Given that the conversation has progressed. I have a protocol 
> question to ask.
> 
> If we had to have a motion to accept the charter for the 
> Working Group (which was clearly termed the "IDN gTLD Fast 
> Track Working Group (IDNG WG)") is it appropriate to continue 
> discussions without going back to the council? It seems that 
> the most recent discussion are well outside the original 
> scope of the Charter.
> 
> I have attached the most recent version of the Charter I could find.
> 
> To me, just as a matter of protocol, shouldn't we go back to 
> the Council and tell them of our findings (or lack thereof) 
> and potentially suggest a new charter? Given the work 
> prioritisation shouldn't the Council decide what WG's are 'in play'?
> 
> Once again, I stress, I am not against the discussion taking 
> place. I think it is valuable. It is actually for this reason 
> that I think it needs to be brought to the broader council's 
> attention.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, 5 December 2009 10:21 AM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> I honestly was not advocating anything when I shared the 1591 
> explanation. It just seemed like the place to start in 
> answering Tim's question.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 6:17 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level 
> > across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > 
> > That may be so Chuck but there is a precedent for 
> competition here in 
> > the introduction of .biz? Unless there is an RFC that says it means 
> > something other than business. This from Wikipedia;
> > 
> > "The term "business" has at least three usages, depending 
> on the scope 
> > - the singular usage (above) to mean a particular company or 
> > corporation, the generalized usage to refer to a particular market 
> > sector, such as "the music business" and compound forms such as 
> > agribusiness, or the broadest meaning to include all 
> activity by the 
> > community of suppliers of goods and services. However, the exact 
> > definition of business, like much else in the philosophy of 
> business, 
> > is a matter of debate."
> > 
> > Sounds a lot like RFC 1591 to me.
> > 
> > If you allow TLD's of similar meanings for competition then 
> you have 
> > to do so across IDN's also.
> > 
> > If V$ takes this approach it makes a mockery of the process.
> > 
> > Adrian Kinderis
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Saturday, 5 December 2009 9:58 AM
> > To: Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level 
> > across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > 
> > 
> > Note the definition of .com in RFC 1591:
> > 
> > "COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
> >          companies." 
> > 
> > Based on this it could mean commercial or company although 
> it is not 
> > specifically defined as an abbreviation.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:24 PM
> > > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across 
> > > different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So what does .com stand for anyway? Commercial, commerce, 
> > > communication, company?
> > > 
> > > I'm concerned about how far, incumbents especially, 
> intend to take 
> > > this.
> > > Will Neustar object to .business? Will VeriSign object to
> > .shop? One
> > > of the primary reasons that ICANN has touted new gTLDs is
> > to increase
> > > competition and user choice. If every possible *version* of
> > a TLD, as
> > > I'm seeing it described in this thread, is held by a 
> single entity, 
> > > how does that promote competition?
> > > 
> > > Taking such an expansive view also sheds a different light on the 
> > > letter from the .SPORT PAC, dotSport LLC, and their 
> supporters, in 
> > > which they claim rights to all sub-categories of sports
> > attempting to
> > > establish a new concept, the *apex* TLD. They use many of 
> the same 
> > > arguments used in this thread to support their assertions:
> > > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baumann-to-dengate-thrush-
> > > 20aug09-en.pdf
> > > 
> > > IMHO, this is kind of thinking that will derail the whole
> > thing and/or
> > > cascade it into never ending lawsuits.
> > > 
> > > Tim
> > > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across
> > different IDN
> > > gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > > From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Fri, December 04, 2009 10:43 am
> > > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > And there I disagree. There is the basis for objection on 
> a broader 
> > > basis then visual to some degree, but I do not see it 
> mandating the 
> > > extent of the basis you are requiring. And the extent of
> > the broader
> > > basis is not strictly defined but refers to many different 
> > > possibilities under many different legal regimes. I do not
> > believe the
> > > intent of the council was ever to give .com, in all of 
> its possible 
> > > translations, homonyms, synonyms and transliterations in all 
> > > languages/scripts to Verisign, or .biz in all of its possible 
> > > translations, homonyms, synonyms and transliterations in all 
> > > languages/scripts to Neustar.
> > > 
> > > the ability that you are requiring:
> > > 
> > > - to exclude all others from any translation,
> > transliteration, aural
> > > similarity, synonym, or homonym because of Confusing similarity
> > > + the ability to claim those for the incumbent because it isn't
> > > confusingly similar for you to have them
> > > 
> > > is the equivalent of preserving an incredibly wide swath of
> > names for
> > > the incumbents. I am certain that was not the intent of 
> the GNSO in 
> > > its recommendations.
> > > 
> > > a.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 4 Dec 2009, at 15:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The detail supporting recommendation 2 clearly defines
> > > confusingly similar in the broader sense and that detail 
> is part of 
> > > the report that was approved by a super majority vote.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, please note that this does not only affect incumbents
> > > but also new gTLD operators that want to apply for various
> > versions of
> > > their TLD, like the example I cited yesterday for .arab.
> > > > 
> > > > Chuck
> > > > 
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > > >> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:36 AM
> > > >> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across
> > > different IDN
> > > >> gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >> 
> > > >> Actually that is not the way I remember it. I remember it
> > > as an issue
> > > >> that went without full resolution and as one of the
> > issue that was
> > > >> punted to the staff to figure out - though were those on
> > > both sides
> > > >> of the argument the whole time. I do not think you can 
> produce a 
> > > >> document or a decision that defines confusingly similar
> > > the way want
> > > >> to define it. You always insisted on Confusing similar
> > meaning all
> > > >> possible forms of similarity, but there never as a
> > > consensus call on
> > > >> that topic to my recollection. I was not alone in
> > > objecting to such
> > > >> an expansion of the term confusingly similar - there was much 
> > > >> discussion but no conclusion.
> > > >> 
> > > >> It is expansive in that if gives incumbent rights in all
> > languages
> > > >> and scripts that no one ever intended to give them,
> > > especially if you
> > > >> combine it with the current drive to give access to 
> names to the 
> > > >> incumbents because when given to incumbents they are
> > allegedly no
> > > >> longer confusingly similar.
> > > >> 
> > > >> But it is not only expansive in that respect because there
> > > are many
> > > >> words in many languages that are synonyms and there are
> > > many that are
> > > >> homonyms, depending on how you pronounce them. Giving
> > > incumbents the
> > > >> ability to block all of those or claim them as is 
> their wish, is 
> > > >> problematic. Again I am speaking personally, but I will
> > > take the case
> > > >> to the SG.
> > > >> 
> > > >> a.
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> On 4 Dec 2009, at 14:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >>> Avri,
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> There is nothing expansive about the definition of
> > > >> confusingly similar in the DAG or in what I have been
> > > proposing. I am
> > > >> aware that you were one individual who did not support it
> > > at the time
> > > >> but a supermajority of the Council supported the 
> recommendations 
> > > >> including the detailed explanations behind them. What do
> > > you see as
> > > >> expansive?
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Chuck
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> > > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:48 AM
> > > >>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across
> > > >> different IDN
> > > >>>> gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> I think that remains to be seen how extensive the support
> > > >> is for this
> > > >>>> expansive notion of confusingly similar.
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> I think this is an unfortunate change in the DAG and do
> > > >> not believe
> > > >>>> it was ever intended by the GNSO though it was argued
> > by some. I
> > > >>>> also believe it will cause great difficulties.
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> a.
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> On 4 Dec 2009, at 00:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> Eric,
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> We have already been down the path of the definition of
> > > >>>> confusingly similar. What is in the DAG now had 
> strong support.
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> Chuck
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>> From: Eric Brunner-Williams 
> [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:29 PM
> > > >>>>>> To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > >>>>>> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across
> > > >>>> different IDN
> > > >>>>>> gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> That makes it (a) a good example of why "meaning" creates
> > > >>>> avoidable
> > > >>>>>> problems, as the two wouldn't form a contention set
> > if visual
> > > >>>>>> similarity was the test, and (b) not a hypothetical
> > > >>>>>> iso3166-1 maybe, but an actual gTLD IDN example,
> > > though when of
> > > >>>>>> course is TBD.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Thank you Tim. If all applications are considered
> > > >>>> independently, than
> > > >>>>>> if both strings resulted in independent contract
> > > >> formation, though
> > > >>>>>> with the same parties, then they would be severable, as
> > > >> they never
> > > >>>>>> really are joined.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> That's another reason why it pays to know
> > > >>>> (interdependency, such as
> > > >>>>>> same applicant) rather than not.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Eric
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>